Daily news and analysis.
We keep you informed and inspired.
This is World Today.
BRICS Foreign Minister's meeting has reaffirmed the opposition to unilateral bullying.
The U .S. economy shrinks in the first quarter of the year as its GDP drops to the lowest level since 2022.
And a report shows American firms stay committed to the Chinese market despite geopolitical tensions.
Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective.
I'm Gue Anna in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes you can download our podcast by searching RoadToday.
Let's first dive into BRICS meeting in Brazil.
Foreign ministers and representatives from BRICS countries and partners have backed a statement by Chair Brazil against the trade protectionism.
All 20 countries participating in the meeting spoke about their concerns for unilateral measures inconsistent with the World Trade Rules.
So for more on this, let's have a Professor Liu Baocheng, director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics.
Welcome, Professor.
It's a pleasure. Happy Holidays.
Thanks, Professor. Happy May Day Holiday to you too.
Professor, let's start with the broader picture, the BRICS Foreign Minister's statement placed strong emphasis on multilateralism and upholding fairness and justice in the global order.
So against the backdrop of rising unilateralism and protectionism, how significant is this stance from BRICS nations in safeguarding international rule and sustainability?
Well, the world is seeing increasing de -globalization drive led by the United States in the manner of unilateralism, protectionism, and even ISILism.
So the BRICs are there to reaffirm that multilateralism and fair trade signals a great benefit to the whole world.
They are there to have a coordinated resistance to the western -dominated system that is there to block the free flow of economic resources and also a rule -based global order.
They are there to showcase a normative leadership in which they position the BRICs as a defender of the post -World War 2 international order based on the sovereign integrity, equality, and UN Charter that is there to defend the multilateral institutions against the Trump -led transactional interest blocks and power -based trading manner.
So, another very important issue is that the stability of multilateral institutions based on the rules and based on the commitment by all countries are crucial at the moment of geopolitical rupture that is going on in different regions and it is there to further strengthen the unity of the Global South against the great power rivalry and also to defend their core interest against ongoing economic coercion by the Trump administration.
One striking moment from the meetings that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi posed five questions in response to US tariff war worldwide.
He asked whether the world should accept a return to lot of the jungle politics or let one country's interests override global ones.
He also questioned whether compromise ensures safety or whether we should accept a unipolar world or we could strive for a more equal multi -polar system.
What message in your opinion is Wong's sending with these fine questions, and how do you interpret the broader signal behind this direct challenge?
Mr. Wong is here to offer a very forceful critique of American -led intellectualism.
The message is there to have two folds of significance.
One is that in terms of the moral integrity, he is here to frame the United States in the reciprocal tariff and also the unjust global behavior as the economically aggressive and also as morally regressive.
It is there to invoke the image of the law of the jungle.
Second, he is calling to a collective agency that the broader signal is a call for a non -western power base, the international lines to reject the passive compromise and instead he reserved a more equal, multi -polar system with mutual respect, whereas no single power can dominate the global agenda.
So it is also a message to the Global South, that by aligning together against the unwelcome forces and to protect the sovereignty of the Global South countries, we are able to move faster and closer together for shared development interests.
Professor, we also heard strong support from BRICS nations.
For instance, Brazilian president Lula told Wang Yi that he admired China's firm and fair countermeasures in response to the tariff war, saying unilateralism must be resisted and any form of power politics that overrides international justice should be firmly rejected.
So how do you read Lula's And more specifically, how might BRICS nations collectively push back against unilateral trade hegemony in the near future?
Against this round of crazy U .S. reciprocal tariffs, China outstands itself as a defender of not only its own national interests, but also a defender of the international institutions based on fair trade.
Lula's remarks reflect the britishness, the attitude alliance with China to really resist the economic coercion.
It is there to affirm a border bricks consensus against the hegemonist trade practices.
countries, and he's also sending a message for collective pushback against the U .S. type of economic coercion and political pressure.
So more concretely, it is there to call the institutional alternatives, to expand the trade within the BRICS countries, possibly to optimize the utility of their own individual currencies and to build the BRICS specific payment system to reduce the dollar dependence and also to have a coordinate diplomacy, for example, to present a unified front in the WTO reform talks and resist the unilateral sanction through the joint statements and offer the legal challenges.
Mm -hmm. Then building on that, when we talk about trade is inseparable from financial support, the BRICS statement also called for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system to give developing countries a stronger voice.
So from your perspective, how might BRICS countries work to, you know, break the current imbalance in global finance, and what concrete changes could we expect to see?
At the moment the IMF, World Bank, and even Asian Development Bank, so these financial institutions are the legacy of the Bretton Woods Agreement and they have really functioned to a positive effect over the several decades, but now with the increasing a position of the global South and the developing countries particularly those big emerging economies they need imperative reform in that they have to be more inclusive in the interests of all the nations in particular.
They call for expansion of share of participation and a voting power of the global South countries.
Given right now the existing challenge, it is also important to accelerate the de -dollarization by developing the cross -border payment system.
For example, there has been a rising outcry whether the BRICS pay as a uniform currency within its unit can also be there to to any extent, to substitute the dominance of the U .S. dollar and they are also there to push for the special drawing rights reform where the great quota shares in the IMF governance is there to reflect the current economic weight, you know, where the developing countries represented by those countries can have a larger share.
These are there to address the current and concrete challenges that are opposing against equitable loan conditionalities and also is there to develop a financing facilities really more equitable, more prompt to answer the real needs of the global South countries.
Professor, technological development has also drawn significant attention from BRICS nations.
They are calling for stronger global cooperation on AI governance, specifically through the UN, rather than unilateral approaches some Western countries have taken.
So what unique advantages do BRICS countries bring to the table in high -tech development, and what kind of cooperation potential are we seeing in this realm?
Well, every round of technological innovation will mean a new paradigm that can emerge along the horizon with geopolitical balance and also with the power rivalry among major constituencies in the global community.
So the six countries are there to have a unique voice in the digital governance.
One is that they have diverse development models.
They are there to promote a smoser, protected but also more transparent data ecological system, where the Global South countries can really have a more coordinated approach in their regulatory procedures and also governance over the data flow in which they are there to facilitate the benefit of the business community, of the consumers, but in the meantime, to defend themselves against the digital hegemony possibly exerted by the United States.
I think more importantly, to contribute to the technological improvements that's there to benefit the livelihood of their people, but rather than really to support the monopoly of certain gigantic multinationals and a small interest group that is more politically oriented.
Professor, one last question.
We're also watching the BRICS circle of friends grow with new members and partner countries joining the group.
How is this expansion trend breathing new life into the BRICS group?
And what kind of impact could it have on the bloc's influence in global governance?
The very fact of the BRICS offers a continued attraction to more countries.
You know, after the existing five members, now we see that Egypt, UAE, Iran, Ethiopia and Argentina are part of it, and more, the significant economies are also there to take a very positive outlook with the growth of their BRICs.
It shows that the Global South are there to have a strong intention to team up and build a consensus over what they see a fair and equitable ground for global governance and also for global development.
And now they also get more and more skeptical with regards to the dominance of the rules that are being manipulated by the United States, and particularly with regard to the dollar dominance and the polarization together with weaponization of the SWIFT system.
So they are there to find a more unique way to defend the multi -polar world and also to shape a new platform so that their core interests can be addressed in a fair and equitable basis.
So I think very practically With the Belt and Road Initiative that is being more and more popular among the countries that are involved, it is there to support a better financing vehicle and also to endorse more of the technologies that are there to deal with grain transition and also for the support of a new round of industrialization among those big emerging economies so that global South countries can get a better term with regard to the access to finance and also with access to their voice as the coordinated and also a fair, transparent global agenda.
Thanks, Professor, for your insightful analysis.
That was Professor Liu Baocheng, director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics.
This is World Today.
Stay with us. Welcome, I am Elaf Elad, economics professor and member of the Data Science and AI Center at New York University, Shanghai.
On the World Today program, you can find in -depth and impartial insight as well as critical commentary on key trends in the Chinese economy, financial technology, business, and blockchain, to prepare for the world tomorrow.
Join me on World Today.
Let's move to the latest snapshot of the U .S. economy.
The U .S. quarterly GDP has shrunk to its lowest rate in three years, raising concerns about the broader economic outlook and the impact of recent tariff policies.
This comes in stark are contrasted to the optimistic narrative projected by the current administration.
So for more on this, let's have Liu Zhijing, Senior Fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you. First of all, U .S. GDP contracted by 0 .3 percent in the first quarter of this year.
And several key indicators have fallen short of expectations.
So from an economic perspective, what role have terror policies played in this downturn?
I think the GDP figure for the first quarter of the United States is not surprising the economy.
Because as we know that the marketer researcher has already warned and expected that the economic development in the U .S. in the first quarter or second quarter, will be seriously damaged.
Now, the figure is really just tell us the truth.
Because the tariff played a very key role to slow down these GDPs increase.
Because from the January 20th when the Trump administration came to the White House, he announced so many times that to impose the heavy tariffs on the world economy.
So I think that the market has already lost its confidence and also the strength of further development.
So that's why they made the economy and industrial capacity in the United States has sharply damaged to grow up in the right direction.
And it's not just the shrinking GDP, new reports show that U .S. trade deficit widened further in March, reaching $162 billion, the highest on record. That figure runs directly contrary to the original goal of the tariff policy run, namely reducing the trade deficit.
So how should we interpret these numbers and what deeper issues do they reveal about the U .S. economy?
I think the trade deficit in March has come to the historical record. It's true because this is a right reaction from the market.
As we know March is the last month for the new tariff indexes imposed by the White House.
That's why the March many retailers and also import from the United States that have imported and ordered so many products in order to put these products in stock in order to deal with the impact of the coming tariffs.
So that's why the figure for trade deficit in March is double increased as before.
This is the main reason that the many importers started importing more than ever in order to deal with the threats of the prices hike in the market.
So of course the supply chain is also seriously damaged and impacted by the tariffs policy.
So this is a very important signal that the tariffs can not solve this trade deficit.
I think the US government should know this fact.
Economic data like this has direct impact on financial markets.
Following the GDB release, all three major US stock indexes fell sharply.
So from a financial system point of view, how could continued market wave affect the broader economy?
I think the financial sections has the right reaction that is connected to the main economic figure in the United States, because as we know the market is coming down with pessimism and also people's confidence in the future.
So that's why the financial market is fully impacted by the negative influences from the tariffs.
This is not the first time, I think, in the past three months that the stock market has dropped in great turmoil.
And I believe that in the short time in the future, this problem will repeatedly happen again, because only when the administration changes their policy of tariffs, I think the financial market will become more stable and more sustainable.
We know businesses are the backbone of the economy and many CEOs in the United States have raised red flags about the uncertainty created by tariff policies.
So, what kinds of negative impacts could this uncertainty have on businesses, on their operations as well, and also their long -term strategy in the U .S.?
Yeah, that's true. As you know, the businesses are on the first line that to be infected or impacted by this tariffs policy?
Because they have to prepare all the products that are on their shelves or supermarkets or even the shopping mall in order to meet the demand of the market.
But actually this tariffs has really threatened their strategic policy.
They don't know how to make a mid -term or long -term development strategy or even they do not know how to make a plan to purchase or for sales or any new products to be imported.
So they are in chaos that they don't know what to do, what is the right way for their development in the future.
So this is a very important threat to the stability of the U .S. economy at the moment.
So we should say that tariff's negative impact will be further implemented to threaten the stability of the retail and business mind in the US.
We know according to Trump administration, one of the targets of this tariff strategy was to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
But recently, Treasury Secretary Scott Basin said the textiles in industry belongs to the past and isn't something the US needs today.
That comment triggered backlash from American textile organizations.
Does this apparent dismissal of traditional industries conflict with the broader narrative of reviving American manufacturing, and what does this tell us about what the U .S. government really wants?
I should say this fact that tell the whole global community that How naive is tariff policy, if they want to have imposed tariffs on all countries that they can bring the manufacturing line back to America, this is not realistic, it's not rational because manufacturing lines need a lot of jobs and raw materials and skilled workers or even factory production lines.
It's not easy to transfer from one side to another side.
And the second is also the manufacturing section.
They have to have a firm and stable expectation in the future.
But all these two factors are missing in the United States policy.
So nobody believes now what today's Trump administration promised to safeguard or to protect the manufacturing section.
because in the future, they may be charging again, the heavy tariffs on those production line or manufacturing line back to the United States.
This is very possible because nobody knows how uncertain the U .S. government should have capability of protecting their own interests.
So in this way that we should say, textile is only one part of the manufacturing line.
They Many products, for instance, automobile and also electrical products, and house electric grid also, including this production.
But if the tech still cannot be realized, the returning of the manufacturing line, I think that this is the same situation for other sections.
Very briefly, based on the current trajectory of policy and economic indicators in the United States, What risks and challenges do you see for the US economy in the second half of this year?
I think the main challenge for the US administration is how to make the people believe and have faith and trust what your official promised to do.
This is the main point that there's no faith, no confidence in the future in the administration.
In the future, the international cooperation will give more confidence and more optimistic policy support to the economy.
So I think the market will come back again.
Thanks. Liu Jucheng, senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at the Renmin University of China.
You're listening to Rode Today.
We'll be back after a short break.
You've been listening to Rode Today with Mykka Anna in Beijing.
Ukraine and the United States have signed a mineral agreement that will give Washington preferential access to new mineral deals.
The court also establishes a joint investment fund for Ukraine's reconstruction.
The deal came weeks after a heated debate at the White when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited with the intention to finalize the document.
So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Yin is joining us in the studio.
Welcome, Zhao. Yeah, thanks for having me.
Let's start with the basics here.
What exactly does this mineral deal entail, and what are its key components?
Yeah, well, first to make it clear a little bit, I think you were referring to that very unpleasant meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy at the White House, just now.
And I think that is in February, about two months ago, and I guess a lot must have happened over the past two months that made them finally come to an agreement.
And the deal is an economic partnership aimed at leveraging Ukraine's vast mineral resources to support its post -war recovery, while deepening ties with the US.
And at its core, it is a joint investment fund called the US -Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.
The fund focuses on Ukraine's critical minerals like lithium, titanium, graphite, which are essential for technologies such as renewable energy, military equipment, and industrial infrastructure.
Ukraine has deposits of over 22 out of the 15 minerals deemed critical by the U .S. The fund operates on a 50 -50 partnership, with both countries having equal voting rights and management shares.
And according to Ukraine's Ministry of Economy, the U .S. would contribute to the fund directly or through military assistance, and Kyiv would contribute 50 percent of the revenues from the exploitation of natural resources.
And Ukraine said it still retains full ownership and control over these resources.
And profits from the fund will be reinvested into Ukraine's reconstruction, like rebuilding infrastructure, boosting the economy, and modernizing industries.
The US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Ukraine to finalize the details, and American companies are expected to play a big role in mining oil and gas projects.
The US has also stated that no state or individual that supported Russia's war will benefit from Ukraine's reconstruction.
And also, it said the deal doesn't explicitly include new U .S. military aid, but a Ukrainian official said the U .S. may provide new assistance, such as air defense systems. If we go through recent U .S. media outlets, it seems that the Trump administration is placing such a high importance on this agreement.
Why is that? What political or economic interests are they hoping to gain?
Trump has been vocal about wanting a tangible return on US investments in Ukraine, especially the aid it provides since the war began in 2022.
And this deal is his way of ensuring the US doesn't just give what he called a blank check but gets something concrete in return.
And what does the US get out of it?
First, I think, of course, is the access to Ukraine's vast reserves of critical minerals.
These are like gold mines for industries like clean energy, tech, and defense, where the U .S. is desperate to reduce reliance on China, which accounts for 90 percent of the global rare earth market.
And secondly, the deal creates economic opportunities for U .S. companies.
The Joint Investment Fund opens stores for American businesses to lead in mining, oil, gas, and reconstruction projects.
That's a multi -billion dollar market if a ceasefire can be reached.
Treasury Secretary Scott Benson has framed this as a chance for the U .S. to participate and even recoup some of its aid through profits.
Geopolitically, the deal gives Trump a personal stake in Ukraine's stability, which could influence his approach to peace talks with Russia and has pushed it as a way to protect US contributions that are signaling to Moscow that America is committed to a prosperous Ukraine, not just a military ally.
But of course, some would argue that this focus on minerals over security guarantees shows that Trump is prioritizing profit over Ukraine's long -term safety.
Some critics have described the deal as exploitative.
What were the major sticking points during the negotiation, and is there evidence that Ukraine was pressured into signing it?
Yes, some do argue that the deal takes advantage of Ukraine's wartime vulnerabilities.
There were several sticking points during negotiations and the biggest one was security guarantees because Ukraine wanted firm U .S. commitments to protect against future Russian aggression as part of the deal, but Trump insisted that Ukraine sign the agreement first and discuss guarantees later.
This left Keefe in a tough point, as Zelensky described an early draft as seeking him to sell his country, and it demanded too much control over Ukraine's resources without offering enough in return.
And also, Donald Trump has largely framed the deal as Ukraine's paying back for the that the US provided over the past three years, and that kind of narrative raises concern that the US was prioritizing financial gain over Ukraine's sovereignty.
But when it comes to this final deal Ukrainian prime minister emphasized it excludes any past aid from repayment obligations and only focuses on future investments.
And whether Ukraine was pressured into signing it, I think there's absolutely pressure because there's this power imbalance between the two nations.
Just think of that unpleasant White House meeting back in February, after which Donald Trump suspended all U .S. aid to Ukraine.
And I think that shows the U .S. definitely holds more leverage in the negotiations and has used that leverage to put a lot of pressure on the Ukrainian side.
But that being said, Ukraine has described the final deal as equal and beneficial partnership with both countries having equal contribution and management shares in this joint investment fund.
But, I mean, the deal might not be coercive in legal sense, but the political and economic context just means that the costs of refusal simply were not a realistic option for Ukraine.
Many believe the deal is seen as a step towards ceasefire negotiations with Russia.
How might this agreement influence those talks, and what does it mean to Ukraine's bargaining position?
Well, Ukrainian officials obviously hope that the U .S. investment and pressure of American companies will make Washington more invested in Ukraine's stability and that will indirectly pressure Russia to negotiate.
It's like it's tying US interests to Ukraine's defense.
But the deal could also motivate the US to prioritize its economic gains over Ukraine's sovereignty and pressure Kiev into some sort of concession for a quick ceasefire to protect American investments like ceding territory or abandoning its NATO aspirations.
Also, the deal may escalate tensions with Russia because Russia may view this as a provocative move that may harden its negotiating stance.
President Zelensky has also described the agreement as a pathway to solid security guarantees.
What kind of guarantees is Ukraine seeking and realistically, can the U .S. deliver on them?
Well, Ukraine is seeking ironclad commitments from the U .S. to deter or respond to Russian attack post -ceasefire.
and they may want to some sort of security agreements that could include military aid commitments, rapid response mechanisms, or some sort of NATO -like mutual defense pledges to ensure that Russia doesn't violate the ceasefire.
And Zelensky believes that the mineral deal with its joint investment fund and U .S. companies' involvement will make Washington more invested in Ukraine's security as American economic interests would be at stake if Russia attacks again.
However, securing these guarantees from the US is a tall order because as we discussed just now, a major sticking point during the negotiations was Trump's refusal to include security guarantees in the deal.
And Trump insisted that Ukraine sign first and discuss protection later.
We don't know much of the details of the final deal yet, but it's reported that it doesn't include security provisions.
So if that is the case, I don't think Ukraine will be likely to secure security guarantees in the near term because the U .S. is obviously prioritizing economic gains over long -term defense pledges.
And if you look at Trump administration's attitude towards NATO and other international institutions and it's clearly withdrawn from this global leadership role.
Thank you for your time and insights.
Coming up, the report shows American firms stay committed to Chinese market despite geopolitical tensions.
This is The Real today.
We'll be back. A mischievous little monster packed in mystery boxes and setting off a global craze from Asia to North America.
Labooboon, the fluffy toothy toy from China, is sending fans camping out overnight and driving resale prices sky high.
How did a China -made plush toy punch through the thick wall of tariffs and land in America's hottest news stores, opening one after another across the country?
What's behind the China -made toy's unstoppable rise?
Check out this week's chat lounge.
Welcome back to Road Today.
Despite all the talk of decoupling, nearly half of American companies still count China as one of their top three investment destinations.
That's according to the latest report from the American Chamber of Commerce in China.
At the same time, 63 percent of surveyed firms cite U .S.-China tensions as their top business challenge.
The report also notes a gradual improvement in China's business environment.
One third of the companies say they have seen better conditions over the past year, citing regulatory reforms and more open policies for foreign investment.
But the organization warns that growing geopolitical uncertainty and the recent U .S. tariff hikes could destabilize global supply chains and increase risks for businesses operating across borders.
So for more on this, our reporter Xia Wen spoke with Professor Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.
We know nearly half of the American business community in China, that's about 49%, ranked the country among their top three global investment destinations even though the percentage naming China as their top investment target has declined by 6 percent.
So what does this suggest us about the enduring value of Chinese markets in the eyes of global investors?
The Chinese market has three very important features about it from the point of view of global investors.
Firstly of course is that it is a large consumer market.
Historically, Really it has been an important market for multinationals.
There is still more room to grow.
You know, we've got another 400 million people to become middle class in China over the next 10 -years.
That's number one. Number two of course, is that China has progressively become a very sophisticated manufacturing country with comprehensive supply chains with all the raw materials and the labour capabilities.
And so companies that are looking to manufacture sophisticated products will find China to be very attractive and the competitive proposition that China offers is one that is very hard to turn back on.
And thirdly, looking forward, China offers a growing depth in research and development in all the scientific and technological areas from AI through to materials sciences and things like that.
Companies looking to go up the value path, will also find China incredibly attractive.
But the report also notes that while 63 percent of Soviet -American companies cite U .S.-China tensions as their top challenge, firms like Toyota are still announcing investments like major investments in China's new energy vehicle sector, such as about $2 billion to build an electric vehicle plant in Shanghai.
Does that mean that political tensions and external pressures have not shaken the fundamental attractiveness of the Chinese market.
Well, there's no doubt that the Chinese market is attractive.
And for companies that are not American, it is a little bit easier for them to be making longer term decisions as far as China goes.
If, however, you are an American company with significant exposure in the North American market, whether it's institutionally, politically or whether you're listed on a stock exchange or you have a parent company back in the United States, and of course, you are going to come under incredible pressure in the current moment in time to be seen to be going along with the administration's broader strategic ambitions, which is to rejuvenate manufacturing in America and to some extent, to decouple from China.
So those companies will be trying to keep their head down, not say too much, hopefully whether the storm and see where where things end up in six months or 12 months time.
So they're hoping that the uncertainty that exists today will eventually settle down and they will be able to make more rational longer -term decisions once all of that has happened.
Well, many experts have suggested that there are no winners in a tariff war.
In the meantime, US currency is imposing as high as 145 % tariffs on Chinese goods, yet some items still enter duty -free.
So, does this expose contradictions in America's trade policy and what are your observations on Chinese manufacturing sectors, those companies break through this uncertainty?
Yeah, look, American trade policy since this administration took office has been characterized by confusion and uncertainty.
The decisions that have been made in relation to tariffs, the escalation of tariffs, the suspension of tariffs, the modification of tariffs, where we're chopping and changing each and every day, really sends a very clear signal at the moment to the marketplace, and that is that trade policy is in a muddle.
It is underpinned by all sorts of ambitions that are non -economic in nature, whether they are geopolitical ones or whether they are really ones aimed at signalling to the domestic political support base that the administration is doing something to bring manufacturing back.
So, very confused environment at the moment.
A lot of instability for investors.
How do we deal with that?
Well, of course, there are ways in which companies work their way around tariffs.
The more complicated the rules there are, the more clever people get in finding ways through whether it's through transshipment, establishing new manufacturing or assembling facilities in other parts of the world.
These are all the kinds of things that companies will of course seek to do.
But it's one thing that to do that, you got to remember one thing, and that is, from China's point of view, the growth is actually in the markets of the global South.
In 2024, China traded more with the BRI countries than it did with the advance world, the G7 world, for the first time ever.
So the growth is actually not in the United States relative to what's happening in the rest of the world.
You know, this week, there is the big news which is China has passed this first private economy law signaling stronger legal support and long term commitment to the private sector.
So how might this new law help improve confidence among foreign investors, especially to American firms?
Look, it's an important move because it signals to the wider community of investors and managers of capital that China is one, open for business and two, mindful of the need to continually improve and mature its operating environment to deliver what is very important for businesses and that is certainty.
When you're making decisions around investing capital that need to have clarity over two, three, four, five or 10 year horizon, having a clear legal framework is absolutely fundamental to your confidence in making those kinds of decisions.
This law sends a very powerful signal that China is listening to enterprises and is working all the time to improve the environment for investors to move forward with confidence.
The last question is about the future of China -US relations.
David Perdue, he was recently confirmed as the new U .S. ambassador to China and he comes from a background of corporate leadership.
Also, he has previously served as a U .S. senator with strong views on trade and national security.
So in your view, what impact his appointment might have on the future of China -U .S. economic relations, especially amid these ongoing trade tensions?
Look he's on the record with some very strong views about China he certainly sees China as an adversary of the of America and in that regard I think is a clear extension if you will of the general attitude not only of this administration but also of the bipartisan position on Capitol Hill.
So as an individual, I don't think we'll see particularly much from him that is outside of that broad ethos.
The bigger issue is whether or not that general ecosystem or that general political direction coming out of the elite in Washington will change over time.
And we will only have to wait and see.
These attitudes towards China have taken decades to evolve, And at the moment, unfortunately, the American political elite see the world very much in zero -sum terms. That was Professor Warwick Powell, adjunct professor at Queensland University of Technology.
The UN Aid Agency for Palestine has condemned the two -month Israeli blockade on Gaza as a silent killer of the most vulnerable in the community.
Juliet Toma is a spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency.
It's almost been two months of a very tight siege.
I'm sure you're all aware they've banned the entry of humanitarian supply and commercial supplies alike, food, vaccines for children, and fuel included.
The siege on Gaza is a silent killer of children, of older people, the most vulnerable in the community.
Thomas says Israel has blocked thousands of Aitraks from entering the territory.
In the southern city of Rafah, the agency reports that recent attacks have devastated While forced evacuation orders have displaced more than 150 ,000 people impacting over 90 % of the city's population.
So for more on this, we are joined now by Dr. Zhang Chuqu, deputy director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
Thanks for joining us, Professor.
Thank you for having me.
Professor, the UN Aid Agency has described the blockade on Gaza as a silent killer.
From a humanitarian perspective, what concrete and possibly irreversible damage had this blockade had on people in the region?
Well, actually, the blockade on Gaza has already caused very severe and potentially irreversible harm to its residents there.
And as we know, at the moment there are over 2 million people living there in Gaza.
So this is truly a humanitarian crisis.
For instance, the total aid blockade has halted food, medicine, and fuel supplies, leaving most residents in Gaza surviving on only one meal or even less daily.
and also at the moment, lots of children are starving and suffer from long -term malnutrition.
Also, meanwhile, lack of medical supplies has also damaged the healthcare system in general.
As we know, a lot of women are facing deadly complications in pregnancy and childbirth due to restricted access.
And also, so far, the destruction of business and farms and infrastructure in Gaza can also lead to very long -term poverty.
Professor, despite condemnation from UN agencies, Israel's continues to enforce the blockade.
What deeper political and strategic considerations are driving this persistent policy?
From my own observation, I think one important driver of this blockade is to impose the so -called extreme pressure tactic in order to force Hamas into concessions.
concessions. Now as we know, Netanyahu tries to use humanitarian suffering as a bargaining chip.
Also he thinks that by doing so he might be able to cut off the connections between Hamas and the outside world in order to prevent Hamas from gaining aid from the outside world.
And moreover, deterioration of the living conditions in Gaza would also lead to a decrease of population in Gaza, as many civilians may flee to other countries, which is in line with the certain far -right coalition members.
Additionally, it is very important to take into consideration Netanyahu's coordination with the Trump administration, which provides him with very firm support and thus emboldens his very hard -line stance.
Professor, recently Egyptian and Israeli officials held talks in Cairo to discuss a new proposal aimed at achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, Egyptian security sources have suggested the talks are close to a major breakthrough.
But Israeli officials appear to be downplaying the progress, claiming no substantial results have been achieved.
How do you interpret these two sharply contrasting assessments from the negotiation sides?
Well, I think this is a very important point.
And actually, these contrasting assessments show very different strategic priorities and concerns between these two countries.
For example, Egypt has been acting as a mediator during this round of Gaza War, so right now Egypt considers that a breakthrough would ease pressures from Gaza's humanitarian crisis, which threatens refugee inflows into Sinai.
Also, Egypt expects that its claim may pressure Israel and Hamas to commit, leveraging the so -called public expectations.
But at the same time for Israel, I think its denial signals a sense of reluctance to concede on very key demands such as Hamas's disarmament or permanent withdrawal from Gaza.
So for Israel, done, playing progress preserves negotiating leverage and appease domestic hotliners who oppose reaching deals with Hamas.
Speaking of sticking points, Israel continues to seek a military solution to the Gaza Strip, and key issues such as, earlier you mentioned the disarmament of Hamas remained unresolved.
How might these divisions affect the future direction of ceasefire negotiations?
Well, right there are certain a lot of obstacles at the moment indeed what we have seen so far is that without agreement on disarmament the Phase 2 talks remain stalled which may lead to ceasefire collapse and renewed violence meanwhile as we know Israel has already resumed airstrikes and blockade which shows a preference of Netanyahu for weakening Hamas militarily rather than through negotiated deals.
But I think we also have to note that while this type of hotline tactic exacerbates Gaza's crisis, with aid blocked and starvation worsening, I think potentially, yes, it might force Hamas to concede under public pressure, but a more dangerous point is that it can also radicalise the base of Hamas.
So this unfortunately may prevent Palestine and Israel from breaking the cycle of violence at the moment.
Professor, one last question.
UN Secretary General António Guterres has warned that the prospects of a two -state solution is fading away as the fighting drags on.
So given all the previous international efforts made to promote this vision, what new strategies or actions could the global community consider now to prevent that vision from fading entirely?
Well, I think right now we have already entered into a very difficult situation, and as you have already mentioned, there are certainly a lot of challenges, and I mean, new strategies are definitely needed to revive this vision amidst ongoing conflict, of course, but I think it needs efforts from very different dimensions.
First of all, I think it is very important to emphasize the necessity of respecting international law and also multilateral mechanisms such as the United Nations.
Also, secondly, efforts need to be made to empower the mediation rules of regional actors such as Egypt and Qatar.
Also, it's very crucial to advance the democratization of international relations by creating more channels to amplify marginalized voice on the global stage.
Thanks professor for your insightful analysis.
That's Dr. Jeong -Chu Choo, deputy director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Fudan University.
That's all the time for this edition of Word today.
I'm Good Anna in Beijing.
Thank you so much for listening.
Bye for now.
